US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's pretend for one moment that he does die before the election, just for the funsies. What happens then? Will the nomination revert to option number 2, aka Bernie Sanders? Or will his running mate automatically replace him just the way Vice-President is supposted to step in after the Big Man in the White House chokes on a piece of matzo? Does he even have a running mate yet?
 
Click to expand...
Kheapathic said:
Now that I think about it, they could've fielded Joe for a clandestine reason (aside killing him off to make way for Kamala). If they put him up front, with his deteriorating mental state, then all this trash comes out; if they were to try and prosecute him (and associates), they could get evaluate his mental state and get him written off as incompetent and therefore unable to testify or whatever. Random thought, probably not even a good one, but eh.
Click to expand...
They ran Biden for the same reason GOP ran Romney in 2012. They didn't want to waste a good candidate on a certain loss.
 
soy_king said:
Definitely not. The dude was kinda around, but after Obama made a serious effort to look like he was doing something about Hurricane Sandy, the writing was on the wall. Joe on the other hand, is actually mentally unwell and it's kinda miraculous he's even alive at this point.

Super OT= I remember voting for Romney in that election because my dad at the time was an avid listener of Dick Morris and genuinely believed that Sandy would fuck up Dem voter turnout in NJ and allow Romney to swing the state.

EDIT=


My personal theory is that this was supposed to be Kamala's turn, and then Tulsi's beatdown and Kamala's lack of charisma and likeability fucked all of that up.
Click to expand...
I remember some people got pretty angry about Chris Christie hugging Obama. That was probably the moment most people that didn't already think so realized Romney was going to lose.
 
Hyrip123876 said:
They'll never say it this year, but maybe in 20 years, if there's any integrity in political history circles, they'll reflect on the Biden campaign, taken altogether but most acutely in its final 6 months, and declare it the single most pathetic campaign in the history of campaigns.
Click to expand...
That will hold up if Trump gets a second term, since if Trump wins then Biden’s campaign is objectively one of the worst political campaigns out there.

If Biden wins then history would look back at Biden kindly only because of the people running the show going to blame Trump for his loss while Biden was a brave underdog
 
Kheapathic said:
I truly do wonder what the DNC was thinking by fielding Biden. The dude has what should be obvious mental decline; not gonna speculate on what flavor, but it is there. They're propping him up with chemicals and probably planning his demise if he does make it into the White House. So the question is, why not just field someone with more rapport? Surely the dozen or so people they had lined up, are willing to play ball and toe their party bullshit. You could easily twist Bernie's arm and he was still a favorite, and been spouting the shit people wanted to hear for the last four years; not to mention, putting him up would get a lot of attention because he's actually the candidate, BERNIE CAN STILL WIN GUYS! MATCH ME! Put Tulsi (non-white woman YASS) in as his VP and you'd have a strong team; I'm not political savant so not willing to say how good, but a lot fucking better than what we got. Instead they give us alzheimer's and mystery meat hooker.

And God forbid the USA somehow survives the next 4 years; AOC will meet the age requirement.
Click to expand...
I genuinely think Tulsi would've won if she ran as the Pres, and pick whatever VP. Her biggest mistake is being a registered D. This whole shit storm makes her appeal to the normal voter more than ever. The DNC hates someone like Tulsi. She checks some boxes, woman, "minority", left leaning. But misses on the critical ones, she's not a full on progressive and she isn''t a globalist. Mortal sins for the DNC. Even Bernie, who is the most progressive guy you can find isn't a globalist. They are obsessed with that.

Democrats are wild in their inability to show any fluency or competency in real world issues. Why do you think they go to these fringe, pro "science" and pro LGBT beliefs? It's the only people dumb enough to vote for them. If Joe wins it'll be hilarious to watch cities crumble and identity politics take the true, ugly form. This country, stuck in a pandemic and racial problems is ripe for a disaster. The media can't go blame Trump if it's Joe (or even better, Kamala) in office.
 
american_amadan said:
The media can't go blame Trump if it's Joe (or even better, Kamala) in office.
Click to expand...
Sure they can. Anything bad that happens during your presidency gets blamed on the previous presidency. Obama blamed the housing crisis on Bush, despite Bush having nothing to do with it.
 
Hyrip123876 said:
They'll never say it this year, but maybe in 20 years, if there's any integrity in political history circles, they'll reflect on the Biden campaign, taken altogether but most acutely in its final 6 months, and declare it the single most pathetic campaign in the history of campaigns.
Click to expand...
Shit, been following campaigns since 1968, and Biden is the worst Presidential candidate of any party that I have ever seen.


1603689962145.png


1603690082088.png


1603690147059.png
 
Inventor of the Telephone said:
View attachment 1687072
He was astroturfed all over, but nobody liked Buttigieg either. Its amazing how terrible and even creepy every non-Tulsi candidate they had was.
Click to expand...
I honestly just didn’t know much about Mayor Pete beyond him being a gay mayor veteran and that’s it, but if that background in the picture is real then I can’t believe the DNC had a literal soy boy running.
 
Kheapathic said:
The requirements are already pretty low; be a natural born citizen and be 35 years or older; everything else is marketing. Mike Bloomberg spent close to (or over, can't remember) one-billion dollars and got 0 support. You could also criticize his methods as he walked in at the 11th hour, wrote a huge check, and is surprised nothing happened. But there's also Jeb Bush; part of the Bush Dynasty, his dad and older brother were both Presidents, spent more than every other Republican candidate in 2016 and got 0 support too. Meanwhile Trump spent less than all other candidates but knew how to play the crowd and was likable (to whatever extent).

There has to be a likability factor; which is something that helped the second Bush. People said stuff like "Yeah he doesn't seem that smart, but I'd drink a beer with him."

Give the zoomer another decade or so, and I wouldn't be shocked by a mainly youtube/twitch presidential campaign.
Click to expand...
I'd unironically vote for Pewdiepie if he could run just for the chance of a tape of him in some kind of negotiations with North Korea and calling Kim Jong Un a "fucking nigger". Also he'd probably fuck over Google as revenge for all the bullshit they've tried to do to him. It would be worth it despite the fact that India would launch their poo-nukes at us.
 
Truthboi said:
I honestly just didn’t know much about Mayor Pete beyond him being a gay mayor veteran and that’s it, but if that background in the picture is real then I can’t believe the DNC had a literal soy boy running.
Click to expand...
Imagine having a century of propaganda painting intelligent agents as cool,mysterious, and dangerous, then Buttigieg comes along and funko pops that bubble.
 
american_amadan said:
I genuinely think Tulsi would've won if she ran as the Pres, and pick whatever VP. Her biggest mistake is being a registered D. This whole shit storm makes her appeal to the normal voter more than ever. The DNC hates someone like Tulsi. She checks some boxes, woman, "minority", left leaning. But misses on the critical ones, she's not a full on progressive and she isn''t a globalist. Mortal sins for the DNC. Even Bernie, who is the most progressive guy you can find isn't a globalist. They are obsessed with that.

Democrats are wild in their inability to show any fluency or competency in real world issues. Why do you think they go to these fringe, pro "science" and pro LGBT beliefs? It's the only people dumb enough to vote for them. If Joe wins it'll be hilarious to watch cities crumble and identity politics take the true, ugly form. This country, stuck in a pandemic and racial problems is ripe for a disaster. The media can't go blame Trump if it's Joe (or even better, Kamala) in office.
Click to expand...
I was rooting for Major Tulsi "Surf Mama" Gabbard to get the Democrat nomination, even as a 2016 Trump voter, because I felt like she would make thing more competitive. Maybe Tulsi could have even swayed my vote or keep Trump on his toes?

This is the 2nd time I've voted for Trump and the 1st time I voted a straight red ticket. No lolbertarian shenanigans and the only Democrat I've ever voted for was to spite my governor, Greg Abbot. I voted for Ted Cruz in 2018 because "Beto" was too much of a risk, however. With how incompetent Biden is, even without the scandals, the false polls can't save him. The lolbertarian party has faded out of relevance with many pre-2016 libertarians; At this point they are just absorbing TDS sufferers who refuse to vote for Biden.
 
linchan said:
Serious question, what are you guy's thoughts on the polling numbers? They say Biden is performing better than Hillary in 2016, is there anything those pollsters are ignoring?
Click to expand...
Take it from someone with experience studying statistics and how to use them - surveys and polls as they are passed in the political sense are not representative of the general public at all. Here are things to consider:

1. A skilled statistician can make survey/poll results say anything they want and it will fool the general public 9/10 times. It may not stand up to actual academic scrutiny once people start delving into sampling data, response demographics, validity, and that sort of mess, but your average MSM consumer is just looking for confirmation bias anyway, they're not going to dig for that kind of stuff. To give an example, say I wanted to do a poll to show support for stricter gun control laws (obviously I would never do this because I am not a moron) in order to push legislation or campaign as a tough-on-guns politician etc... Obviously if I focus my sampling efforts on surveying people in an urban area with a history of liberal leaning policies I am much more likely to get the desired result than if I focus on asking that question in rural Appalachia. Sure, sample size might be something that is typically left in there or even prominently displayed to show "look how valid this is because of how many people I surveyed" but how many political surveys/polls have you seen where they actually reviewed, in detail, how many responses came from urban/rural/suburban/high-SES/low-SES/etc people, and mentioned this on the image or abstract they post with the poll? When this data is made available it's not generally included with the basic breakdown that is presented in the media - most people are not interested enough to follow the breadcrumbs and dig into this data.

2. This is more anecdotal than the last point, perhaps, but it is my experience and observation that certain people are just more likely to respond to polls in the first place. Sure there are outliers in the political context, but think about the type of person who is willing to stop what they're doing and take 5-10 minutes out of their day to respond to some stranger calling/random piece of mail or email/person on the corner. Think really hard and be honest about what that type of person probably represents. There may be a few karen types or boomers who are politically motivated enough to respond to strangers and answer polls, but in truth most people only respond to polls without monetary compensation if it's about something they care enough about in the first place. College students, wealthy urbanites, and activists of pre-existing ideological persuasion - these are the people who will reliably stop and waste their time for free answering questions to a stranger.

3. With this logic you also have to consider the type of polling done, where it's done once again, and ease of access. Your average boomer or geriatric isn't going to be online enough except for maybe browsing Facebook to come into contact with most polls or check their email regularly enough to respond, and most rural dwelling people don't go out and about enough to catch them with in-person street corner polling, so you're largely limited to mailed surveys (which most people wont fill out without financial incentive), phone calls (which most people won't answer since it's an unknown number), or door to door surveys (Which don't offer good sampling sizes and suffer limitations from the restricted scope of the surveying). So right there you're discounting huge amounts of people with the most common polling/survey methods, simply because they're not likely to even come into contact with the survey in the first plac.e
 
StyrofoamFridge said:
I was rooting for Major Tulsi "Surf Mama" Gabbard to get the Democrat nomination, even as a 2016 Trump voter, because I felt like she would make thing more competitive. Maybe Tulsi could have even swayed my vote or keep Trump on his toes?

This is the 2nd time I've voted for Trump and the 1st time I voted a straight red ticket. No lolbertarian shenanigans and the only Democrat I've ever voted for was to spite my governor, Greg Abbot. I voted for Ted Cruz in 2018 because "Beto" was too much of a risk, however. With how incompetent Biden is, even without the scandals, the false polls can't save him. The lolbertarian party has faded out of relevance with many pre-2016 libertarians; At this point they are just absorbing TDS sufferers who refuse to vote for Biden.
Click to expand...
The Libertarian Party feels like controlled opposition at times; who's controlling them, no clue, but they're making them dance like autistic shit-flinging monkeys. I know the media does no favors, so never really cared for how they were represented there. But after Trump, watching them absorb TDS and woke shit made me really shake my head in disappointment. They're supposed to be the most freedom loving people of all; and now they want to tell me that I can't say nigger because that'll stop black people from being freedom lovers... yeah, whatever.
 
Sithis said:
Take it from someone with experience studying statistics and how to use them - surveys and polls as they are passed in the political sense are not representative of the general public at all. Here are things to consider:

1. A skilled statistician can make survey/poll results say anything they want and it will fool the general public 9/10 times. It may not stand up to actual academic scrutiny once people start delving into sampling data, response demographics, validity, and that sort of mess, but your average MSM consumer is just looking for confirmation bias anyway, they're not going to dig for that kind of stuff. To give an example, say I wanted to do a poll to show support for stricter gun control laws (obviously I would never do this because I am not a moron) in order to push legislation or campaign as a tough-on-guns politician etc... Obviously if I focus my sampling efforts on surveying people in an urban area with a history of liberal leaning policies I am much more likely to get the desired result than if I focus on asking that question in rural Appalachia. Sure, sample size might be something that is typically left in there or even prominently displayed to show "look how valid this is because of how many people I surveyed" but how many political surveys/polls have you seen where they actually reviewed, in detail, how many responses came from urban/rural/suburban/high-SES/low-SES/etc people, and mentioned this on the image or abstract they post with the poll? When this data is made available it's not generally included with the basic breakdown that is presented in the media - most people are not interested enough to follow the breadcrumbs and dig into this data.

2. This is more anecdotal than the last point, perhaps, but it is my experience and observation that certain people are just more likely to respond to polls in the first place. Sure there are outliers in the political context, but think about the type of person who is willing to stop what they're doing and take 5-10 minutes out of their day to respond to some stranger calling/random piece of mail or email/person on the corner. Think really hard and be honest about what that type of person probably represents. There may be a few karen types or boomers who are politically motivated enough to respond to strangers and answer polls, but in truth most people only respond to polls without monetary compensation if it's about something they care enough about in the first place. College students, wealthy urbanites, and activists of pre-existing ideological persuasion - these are the people who will reliably stop and waste their time for free answering questions to a stranger.

3. With this logic you also have to consider the type of polling done, where it's done once again, and ease of access. Your average boomer or geriatric isn't going to be online enough except for maybe browsing Facebook to come into contact with most polls or check their email regularly enough to respond, and most rural dwelling people don't go out and about enough to catch them with in-person street corner polling, so you're largely limited to mailed surveys (which most people wont fill out without financial incentive), phone calls (which most people won't answer since it's an unknown number), or door to door surveys (Which don't offer good sampling sizes and suffer limitations from the restricted scope of the surveying). So right there you're discounting huge amounts of people with the most common polling/survey methods, simply because they're not likely to even come into contact with the survey in the first plac.e
Click to expand...
 
There's also something else to consider: People who change their votes to something else. I know its probably a small amount, but still there was a huge spike in that search after the debate. And in some states (including PA), you can. This election is going to be very unpredictable. Election night is going to be a hoot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom